Welcome to DBSTalk

Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!

DIRECTV not having the Los Angeles Lakers would be absolutely absurd. We've all seen this tactic before. Both parties play chicken/victim, then strike a deal in the eleventh hour. Just get er done. Yes, raise my bill if need be.

If the Dodgers do end up with TWC, does that mean that another channel would have to be created to accommodate the times in which the Dodgers and Lakers would be playing at the exact same time? (In late March/ early April, the Dodgers would be in spring training and beginning their regular season, while the Lakers would just be finishing up their regular season). Not to mention, the Galaxy season begins some time in March/April, as well. I wonder how they will handle those possible overlaps.

I would say SAP would be enabled to allow flexibility between the two channels in certain circumstances. At least that is what I would have done.

Subscribed to DirecTV for NFL Sunday Ticket, remained a subscriber for international football.

Sure, and that ESPN that is going for $4.50 or whatever it is, now it's $10 to $15. Etc, etc. That's the problem with a la carte pricing and why it doesn't work. People in Canada are learning that right now. Yup, they lower their bill because they are only buying what they watch and instead of getting 150 channels for $75 they're getting 20 for $45. A la carte means less choice, far less diversity of offerings, etc, etc. On the sports side, it would basically destroy the leagues revenue system (we can argue whether that is a good or bad thing). Quick example, ESPN just recently spent several billion on Monday Night Football rights. Those dollars go to the league and eventually to the players via the salary cap and each team's chunk of the pie. ESPN bid billions KNOWING what bird they have in hand with X number of millions of subscribers across D*, Dish, Fios, UVerse, Cable, etc because they are penetrated about 90% on all base packages, whether people want ESPN or not.

Now, make ESPN a la carte, the cost goes up to $10 to $15 MINIMUM per month per subscriber to cover those same costs..that is if people are even willing to pay the price.

If one's getting 25 channels that one watches x 25 out of 150 and pay CAD30 less, I think that's a good deal.Being currently a sports pak subscriber and former a-la-carte subscriber of BabyFirstTv- it has since folded into the choice package I subscribe to, I would not mind having only the channels that my family watches and pay even only 1 cent less.Back to topic, let's see how this goes, but I can understand Directv's decision of not carrying PAC-12 for now, but not carry the Lakers or the Houston teams, that would show me Directv decided to follow Dish's path. And the reason I dropped Dish was because Dish carries ZERO NYC RSNs. I'd go a step further and say if not for sports, i'd only sign for an Internet provider and Netflix.

That would be great if all the contracts were up at the same time, but they're not. You can't just unilaterally do that to the B10 if there are years left on the current deal. Same with the others you mentioned. You can't just "make them all a la carte" for that very reason, there are governing contracts that exist.

Back when YES launched, I remember going to a Giants game and seeing a booth saying "If you want to watch the Yankees, you have to subscribe to Directv", as Cablevision didn't carry YES for about 1 year. I guess time's are changing on Directv...

Up until now, we never had a doubt that when a new sports channel came along that D* would carry it, if it could. It would take the fans' position and try to do what it could to obtain carriage. We know that channels such as CSNPhilly, CSNNW and other owners throw road blocks in D*'s way so they could keep their channel(s) off of its system, and we lived with it because we felt that D* was in our corner.

But now, things seem to have changed. I get the feeling D* is putting its interests ahead of ours, and that's the issue.

I would agree with that.

D* claims they are looking out for their customers by keeping their bill from going up. But if the things I most want to watch --Lakers basketball and USC football -- are not available to me on D*, than my interests are not being served very well, no matter what my monthly bill is.

Last week's Cal game was the first USC game in 11 years that was not available on my TV. Sure, the Pac-12 shares some of the blame, but it does feel as if something has changed at D* -- and not for the better.

D* claims they are looking out for their customers by keeping their bill from going up. But if the things I most want to watch --Lakers basketball and USC football -- are not available to me on D*, than my interests are not being served very well, no matter what my monthly bill is....

Are you in Florida? The Lakers will still be on League Pass.

If you stop responding to them or put them on ignore, then eventually they'll go away.

DIRECTV not having the Los Angeles Lakers would be absolutely absurd. We've all seen this tactic before. Both parties play chicken/victim, then strike a deal in the eleventh hour. Just get er done. Yes, raise my bill if need be.

Can I suggest that they raise your bill once for you, and once for me? I would prefer my bill not be raised.

I only say this to make the point that not everyone will go along with a $10 per month increase for a single channel with limited national appeal.

Opinions expressed by me are my own and do not necessarily reflect
those of DBSTalk.com, DIRECTV, DISH, The Signal Group, or any other company.

D* claims they are looking out for their customers by keeping their bill from going up. But if the things I most want to watch --Lakers basketball and USC football -- are not available to me on D*, than my interests are not being served very well, no matter what my monthly bill is.

Last week's Cal game was the first USC game in 11 years that was not available on my TV. Sure, the Pac-12 shares some of the blame, but it does feel as if something has changed at D* -- and not for the better.

Companies never do what is best for the customer unless it is at least neutral for them. That would eventually lead to going out of business. Same when their interests do not meet enough customers interests. Things work best when company and customer interests align.

While directv may not be doing what is best for some individuals but they believe it is the right course for enough to keep them profitable and in business. For the vast majority, individual channels that cost a lot are bad business. So, no matter our individual preferences, they are doing what is in the best interest of the customers.

I know DirecTV is the sports leader. They may be loosing a bit of that edge by not having the Lakers (or the Pac-12) for that matter, but not many other providers will as well. And as stated above, none have the coverage that DirecTV does for so many other sports channels.

I hope they get the Lakers as well as Pac-12 soon, I don't want to switch providers (switching won't get me the Lakers up in PDX) but I may. Of all the forces at work in all of the negotiations the most influence I have is to switch providers, and that's negligible unless I can get thousands (hundreds of thousands) of people to switch with me and let DirecTV know why. Or exactly the opposite, get absolutely zero people to leave DirecTV and tell TW or Pac-12 that we can live without their overpriced product.

ok maybe I can write a lot without going completely crazy.

I applaud DirecTV in trying to get what they believe is a fair price for any channel. I just wish I knew what was fair or unfair.

I would say SAP would be enabled to allow flexibility between the two channels in certain circumstances. At least that is what I would have done.

That would be a great idea. However, another thought comes to mind. There could also be that rare (but very possible) instance where all three teams would be playing on the same night in March/April. Would TWC have to delay the broadcast of perhaps the Galaxy game? Or would they make sure that a national network, such as ESPN or TNT, would carry one of those games for that particular evening?

On a side note, does anyone here remember the "enhanced" Lakers coverage that aired simultaneously on Prime Ticket for certain games a few seasons ago? FSN West would broadcast the normal game coverage with the announcers and PT would show various different angles and behind the scenes footage with interviews conducted by the sideline reporter?

If an additional TWC channel (or a part-time overflow feed) ends up being created for the Dodgers, I think it would be pretty cool to use that channel for "bonus" Lakers coverage.

I recall the Yankees having a similar enhanced channel. Do they still have it?

A few months ago, Time Warner Cable Inc. was crying foul at the high price it had to pay to air Knicks and Rangers games in New York. Now, the shoe is on the other foot.

The nation's No. 4 TV distributor bought the regional TV rights for the Los Angeles Lakers and pro soccer's LA Galaxy last year for an estimated $3 billion over 20 years. It's launching two new channels based on those rights on Monday. To help pay for them, it is demanding payment from other TV distributors like Dish Network Corp. and DirecTV.

Time Warner Cable is asking as much as $3.95 per subscriber per month from competitors in the L.A. area, said a person familiar with the situation. The person requested anonymity because the negotiations are confidential and the details were not yet final.

That would make it the second most expensive regional sports network in the nation behind Comcast SportsNet Washington, which charges $4.02 per subscriber per month, according to research firm SNL Kagan.

It hasn't secured deals yet and likely won't until the regular season starts on Oct. 30.

"We think the price we're asking our distribution partners to pay is one of the better value propositions out there," said Mark Shuken, senior vice president for TWC Sports Regional Networks. Shuken declined to discuss the rates Time Warner is seeking.

Bob Toevs, a spokesman for Dish, confirmed that talks are ongoing, but said "it will have to be a good value for us and, most importantly, for our customers." DirecTV said in a statement that it is "very engaged" in talks to carry the channels, but said it has a responsibility to its customers to "avoid any extraordinary increases" in their monthly bills.

The main reason to buy the rights is to contain rising sports costs, Shuken said. It's better to be a rights buyer, he said, rather than to haggle with other channel operators and be subject to "big bumps" in prices every few years.

That makes sense, according to Tom Eagan, an analyst with Canaccord Genuity, who estimates the deal will be break-even or slightly positive in the end, but give the company more certainty about its future costs.

"I think we've all been consistently amazed by the increasing costs of sports," Eagan said. "I think Time Warner Cable feels there's some value to owning the rights and the actual channels as well."

Time Warner Cable will bear production costs and has spent money on a new studio in the suburb of El Segundo. It has hired familiar on-air talent like former Laker James Worthy and reporter Chris McGee, who worked the sideline for Fox Sports West, which carried most of the Lakers' home games for more than a decade before this deal.

Offsetting those costs, Time Warner Cable will gain revenue by selling commercial time and the channels — Time Warner Cable Sportsnet and the Spanish-language Time Warner Cable Deportes — to other TV providers.

It's not unusual for a TV distributor to get into the business of buying sports rights directly.

Comcast Corp., the nation's largest TV provider, operates 11 regional sports networks, including one in Houston that will be the exclusive home of the NBA's Houston Rockets and also launches Monday. SNL's Kagan said there are about 40 regional sports networks across the country. Many are owned by cable TV companies.

Assuming that deals are reached with all of its competitors, the new Lakers channels will be available to almost all of the 4.8 million people who already pay for TV in Los Angeles, including the 1.7 million who get service through Time Warner Cable.

But Los Angeles also has around 686,000 homes that get their TV signals for free via antenna, the highest number of any market in the nation, according to SNL data.

That means that fans who were used to watching Lakers' away games for free on KCAL 9, a CBS Corp. TV station, will now have to pay for TV from a provider that carries the channel. Either that or hit the local sports bar when the Lakers are out of town.

Are you referring to RSNs carrying the away or visiting team's telecasts playing the Lakers being available on LP (blacked out in the LA area of course)?

Since with rare exception, the channel 750s range LP channels are simply remaps of RSNs carried in the 600 channel range, how can DIRECTV provide the Lakers home feed to LP without an agreement to carry TWC SportsNet?

Does TWC still have to allow DIRECTV to carry the home feed for LP purposes to the other markets?

Are you referring to RSNs carrying the away or visiting team's telecasts playing the Lakers being available on LP (blacked out in the LA area of course)?

Since with rare exception, the channel 750s range LP channels are simply remaps of RSNs carried in the 600 channel range, how can DIRECTV provide the Lakers home feed to LP without an agreement to carry TWC SportsNet?

Does TWC still have to allow DIRECTV to carry the home feed for LP purposes to the other markets?

It's up to the NBA, and do you think they'll exclude LA from LP? DirecTV carries Phillies baseball games on EI without a CSN-Philly deal.

If you stop responding to them or put them on ignore, then eventually they'll go away.

My experience with CSN-Philly is their live games would be carried if and only if the opposing team's feed is not available and that isn't all that often.

Are you referring to RSNs carrying the away or visiting team's telecasts playing the Lakers being available on LP (blacked out in the LA area of course)?

Since with rare exception, the channel 750s range LP channels are simply remaps of RSNs carried in the 600 channel range, how can DIRECTV provide the Lakers home feed to LP without an agreement to carry TWC SportsNet?

Does TWC still have to allow DIRECTV to carry the home feed for LP purposes to the other markets?

It's up to the NBA, and do you think they'll exclude LA from LP? DirecTV carries Phillies baseball games on EI without a CSN-Philly deal.

Back when YES launched, I remember going to a Giants game and seeing a booth saying "If you want to watch the Yankees, you have to subscribe to Directv", as Cablevision didn't carry YES for about 1 year. I guess time's are changing on Directv...

Why, does D* no longer have YES? I know DISH doesn't..."the new sports leader"